These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#301 - 2013-04-03 12:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs".
1. Allow access for CEO/Directors
2. Allow access for ALL

Problem solved.


Same problem I envisioned myself, at least directors or the CEO should be given a way to move stuff to a new location. Hell, it would even be good enough to have a shinkwrapped item out of any personal hangar if need be, so nobody can use it but can only move it to the new location so the owner can unwrap it once he's back. but destroying all the stuff (presumably valuable stuff if it's in the personal hangar) if you need to relocate is plain dumb.
I'd never put my personal stuff in a place where it gets blown up if the tower needs to be relocated for any reason, due to the constant danger and the shifting needs of WH life that's going to happen sooner or later.



Shrinkwrap idea sounds like an acceptable compromise. Especially if you plan to allow corps to rent space in their POS to other non-hostile corps -- just as NPC stations do. :)

Still kind of think term POS should be sufficient warning about theft by CEO or director though. Choose your corp wisely.

Evil Really this destroy on unanchor idea sounds more like a request from directors of big corps who do not want to be burdened with moving personal property. They want to say "sorry had to save structures and CCP does not allow me to waste hours moving your personal junk around. Its just gone sacrificed without a thought to support the corporate good."Twisted
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#302 - 2013-04-03 12:17:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Lol


It would not absolutely need a new database back end for it, I would have thought?

Perhaps consider the possibility of adding a new inventory item called, let's say "Evacuation Orders", which, if placed in a hanger, would allow a CEO / director to extract items from it. Thus if this item is not included in the drag then it is not permitted. Clearly this is something which could not be placed in the hanger by anyone but the hanger owner.
Tennessee Jack
Doomheim
#303 - 2013-04-03 12:31:35 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Lol


It would not absolutely need a new database back end for it, I would have thought?

Perhaps consider the possibility of adding a new inventory item called, let's say "Evacuation Orders", which, if placed in a hanger, would allow a CEO / director to extract items from it. Thus if this item is not included in the drag then it is not permitted. Clearly this is something which could not be placed in the hanger by anyone but the hanger owner.



I get what they are doing.

1) These new hangers will not have a Ultimate size limit... technically, you could put a million people in it, and you will never fill it up.

2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.

Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved.

You could do the same thing with SMA's, restricted on ship size (Use the ORCA's or Supercapital's system).

Then people will have to use the CSMA for storing their capitals, giving people that much of a bigger target.

I'm fine with the size restriction of the hangers, but I would do it exactly like the POCO, which is 30,000m3 (Decent midground).


Come to think of it.. there are 3 main area's you could target.

1) Miners
2) PI people
3) Industrialist.

The industrialists I think are decently set, as they generally use the Large Arrays for managing their equipment to a degree (that and the stuff itself is so varied you can't do restrictions on items)

Make a Ore Storage Array. The ore storage array is a new creation by Ore Industries, though the magic of Microcompression, we are allowed to store more Ore, Ice and Gas than humanly possible in the old SMA"s, give it a cap of.. oh 5,000,000m3 (3 freighters worth). Something like that. Put 2 tabs in it. Private, Public. You can dump your stuff in your private tab, or dump it in the public tab if you need to offload it to someone else to haul it.

We can dream up stuff for a long while on this.

But please.... I should not be able to cancel my CEO's manufacturing Job, and Day 1 New Guy in Corp should not be able to cancel my manufacturing job... Fix this please.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#304 - 2013-04-03 12:35:35 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
P.P.S.: My first thought was also "need a way to scoop those stuff somehow". But then I've read a reasoning from Fozzie, who said that you should have a tough choice between using CHA and PHA. The choice is hard indeed, works as intended. Just make sure your corpmates understand that.


This isn't going to be a choice between security and non-security. It's a choice between having an obnoxious, outdated method of personal storage and a convenient one at potentially significant cost if you can't log in at the drop of a hat. Me, I'm going to be keeping my cheap, crappy mods and items in the uber-private storage and still keeping the expensive, useful stuff the same way I always have -- in ships and cans. Seems a little backwards to me.

If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things. And if the CHA functioned at all well for personal storage, then I wouldn't care at all! But right now, it does not. I cannot repeat this enough. We are not choosing between equally accessible methods of personal storage with different risks and rewards for the different security settings. Even if it doesn't come in this release, we need some middle ground someday. Please, o gods of POS revamps, please take this under consideration.
Udonor
Doomheim
#305 - 2013-04-03 12:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
I understand the convenience of instantly accessing anything inside the POS shield. But it does not match concept of separate anchored structures. microdrones that can move any sized cargo instantly? The idea seems more like 50% for coding convenience of that monster the Universal Inventory system. So lame I start wonder if we will see asset management panel driven instant item movement across all of EVE explained by micro-drone generated micro-wh technology.

Idea A control tower based tractor beam (increased mats and cost?) with some time delay per item movement would be far more realistic and give CCP opportunity for some Kickass graphic animation. Idea

I think that as far as convenience goes most people would be willing to wait a handful of seconds for each movement.

Idea Also why limit movement to inside POS shield? Why not let tractor beam move to structures outside shield?

Idea Just make item being moved targetable outside POS shields and decrease rate of movement according to distance from control tower. Such that items being moved within shield complete movement within 10 seconds but ammo being moved to guns 10km outside shields might take 20 seconds. The apparent signature radius of the tractored item could be made quite large.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#306 - 2013-04-03 12:56:08 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
Why create a new structure for the personal hangars? I know there is a balance to keep with fittings of each tower (which are horribly unbalanced at the moment ) but with the removal of variable fuel consumption this doesn't make much sense. Just slap the personal hangars on the tower itself and be done with it. When personal ship hangars are added add those to the tower as well.



I agree that PSH having infinite storage is sort of unrealistic. if you are going to do that with structures -- indeed just make it part of tower. Currently its sounds like a badly implemented WOW ag of infinite holding. A structure that services 1 member to all of largest corp in EVE sounds silly. An idea that sound driven by desire to keep UI code simple rather than code that feels realistic.


PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.

Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.

I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#307 - 2013-04-03 13:18:44 UTC
YAY! if you allow to anchor POS anywhere i will be very very happy! :DD
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#308 - 2013-04-03 13:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
If the thrust of PSH is to simplify management of POS space...

If directors are not going to help save personal property when a hangar must be moved on short notice -- then the best way to reduce their work is to remove the member from director role. If you do that he has tons more free time while everyone else retains their property. Agreed directors will not always have time to save everything, but they should make a best effort.

But...

(1) simply putting a fixed cap on user space pretty much solves all a director's normal management issues about storage at a POS. It then becomes the individual members problem. Allowing director to assign different sized fixed blocks of storage to each user until PSH total space is all allocated would be super nice (like old server disk space management).

(2) Giving director button to eject everyone's stuff as shrinkwrap contents in jetcans prior to unanchor would be nice as any available body could then haul. I guess shrinkwrapped packages would need to limited to 10K m3 or jetcan as to fit into common industrial haulers.

(3) Making the total space in single structure infinite is bad. If it does need to move under proposed not director access (not even shrinkwrap eject) you have to wait much longer for massive number of members to clear personal goods before unanchor (or lose toons more member stuff).

By limiting numbers of users per PSH corps limit the number members who need to move their stuff before unanchor ...or limit losses if they cannot be contacted before move. Generally if divided some subgroup of personal storage users will reach move out goal more quickly than others.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#309 - 2013-04-03 13:34:00 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:
PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.

Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.

I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.


20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#310 - 2013-04-03 13:38:10 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
YAY! if you allow to anchor POS anywhere i will be very very happy! :DD

No, hell no!
There MUST be a competition for a place to set your shop. Remember? "Location, location, location." (c)
To be honest I'm so glad Fozzie took over POS revamp. He has a strong argumentation on things he does. Not just pulling something out of his nose shouting "that'd be awesome, because it rocks!" Unlike that other dev. Yes, I remember that name; no I'm not saying it aloud.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#311 - 2013-04-03 13:54:20 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things.

The reinforcement timer is not designed to let you un-anchor everything and dock up safely. It's to give you the time to assemble a fleet and strike back. Cannot win? Then you loose. And that loss actually hurts. Making thou thirst for revenge... sweeeet bloody holly revenge!!!!111oneone
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#312 - 2013-04-03 14:01:25 UTC
Big smile Fozzie is obvious a good manager and Software Engineer. But I am not sure if he is one of those who elicits clarification and help via making polarizing statements -- or if he is letting a lot of his personal opinion on how EVE should be played color his proposals.

Taken at face value the PSH proposal would make it seem Fozzie detests the idea of personal property being stored at a Corp owned POS. Thus the PSH incinerate all personal items at POS in single move design. Not sure if the idea of using only Corp stuff at POS stems from totalitarian Communist or ultra company-slave style Capitalism as the two concepts are mirror-images in practice if not moral justification. I just know its an extreme twist on what is currently possible and practiced by most in EVE.

Obviously some the extremism might be explained by allowing obsession with simplicity of coding to drive the game mechanic results - rather than having desirable game mechanics drive the necessary code. If so I applaud Fozzie for considering reduced software complexity at expense of some desired game mechanics frills. However there tradeoffs need to at least be proportionate and neither code complexity nor game mechanics suffer so much as to become unrecognizable. Balance.

bottomline: Please leave it up to the individual corps as to the degree personal property is or is not allowed in POS. PSH as single stop incinerate is not necessary. Corps can have that effect by just not providing PSH at all or PSH access or only to certain individuals. So flexible PSH with director able to drop in and take provide maximum corp flexibility
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#313 - 2013-04-03 14:06:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.

Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.

I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.


20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.



If you store it in Corp Hangar Arrays now - how is trading 1 CHA for each PSH more restrictive? Assume equal volume and 20 personal user rather than 7 tabs.

Not more restrictive UNLESS you stick with Fozzies 1 PSH per POS. I am proposing Multiple PSH model. I only suggested 1.4M m3 volume and 20 users as a starting place that might be reasonable.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#314 - 2013-04-03 14:14:36 UTC
Tennessee Jack wrote:
I get what they are doing.
...
2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.

Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved.

Always nice to meet another sane person ;-)
Dont you think the ability of defenders to blow up all stuff kinda discourages the attacking side? And a saboteur can deal a lot of damage with a single click of a mouse - seems like a bad design, isnt it?
What if a PHA remains anchored unless it's completely empty? Much better solution from any point of view, imo. Well, just imagine you log in and see a corp mail: "I accidentally our PHA, all of it. Sorry. Sincerely, 1-day noob."
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#315 - 2013-04-03 14:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.

Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.

I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.


20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.



Can't be more restrictive than 7 tabs per CHA now. I bet you do not have 100 members in single CHA now. Probably not even in 5 CHA.

Yes I agree we could EXPAND current POS abilities so that large corps could consolidate the need for say 3-5 POS into one POS. Pardon me but I suspect that is where most your enthusiasm comes from. And maybe to some degree you are correct.

I am just saying a POS does not support storage for 1000 members today and it should not tomorrow.

But yeah maybe CCP needs to look close at how many people each POS size should support for personal storage. IDK maybe 20 per PSH is high and maybe its low. I did not set that proposed number in stone. I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure.
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#316 - 2013-04-03 14:19:38 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Tennessee Jack wrote:
I get what they are doing.
...
2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.

Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved.

Always nice to meet another sane person ;-)
Dont you think the ability of defenders to blow up all stuff kinda discourages the attacking side? And a saboteur can deal a lot of damage with a single click of a mouse - seems like a bad design, isnt it?
What if a PHA remains anchored unless it's completely empty? Much better solution from any point of view, imo. Well, just imagine you log in and see a corp mail: "I accidentally our PHA, all of it. Sorry. Sincerely, 1-day noob."


If your corp is giving PHA unanchoring roles to a 1 day noob, well, you've got bigger problems there.

And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2013-04-03 14:22:59 UTC
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?


That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.

Unless CEOs/directors can pull stuff out of people's personal hangars, I don't see us anchoring the new module at all.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#318 - 2013-04-03 14:24:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
If one of the primary goals of the new PSH is actually to help larger corps consolidate POS and save ISK...

how many people should each size POS support (along with some upscaling of the number of available industrial facilities as well)?

Small tower -->15-20?

Medium tower --> 50+ ?

Large tower ---> 100-150?


I know Fozzie didn't originally say that. But it seems to be the thrust of a lot of support for his ideas. Just seems that IF that is the reason may it needs a wee bit closer examination and then official acknowledgement.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#319 - 2013-04-03 14:25:17 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:
I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure.

GOONSWARM-SIZED LOOT PINATA!!!
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#320 - 2013-04-03 14:33:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure.

GOONSWARM-SIZED LOOT PINATA!!!


Agreed -- both a positive (ISK saved in construction) and NEGATIVE effect. And not sure that those are the intended dominate effects that they would become.

Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.

I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.

In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's


Or maybe this wouldn't happen if Fozzie restricts personal storage to 40K m3 (his blog speculation). Can't storage much personal ore in 40K m3.
LOL - maybe number of POS would explode if most mining is for personal profit. Need one POS for every 1.5 retriever personal ore loads.